Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 226
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Kumaran, J.
Raj Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Misc. No. 15996 of 1996,
Decided On : JANUARY 31, 1997
The provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. bar the taking of cognizance of offences under Sections 205 and 209 IPC except on a complaint by the Court where the offence was committed.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 195 - FORGERY - IMPERSONATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION - FIR QUASHING: The court held that the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 196 IPC will have to be quashed since the complaint has not been lodged by the Court concerned.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of obtaining a decree in a civil court by producing an impersonator. No complaint was lodged by the concerned Civil Court but the FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint to the police under Sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 196 and 120-B IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. bar the taking of cognizance of offences under Sections 205 and 209 IPC except on a complaint by the Court where the offence was committed. The court also held that the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC were overlapping and that the provisions of Sections 195(1)(b)(ii) are applicable to Sections 467 and 468 also by implication.
Issues: Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 467, 468, 471, 193, 196 IPC can be quashed since the complaint has not been lodged by the Court concerned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. which states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the sections enumerated therein except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings.
K.S.KUMARAN, J.
1. Second respondent Mukhtiar Kaur and the third respondent Choti Kaur lodged a complaint before the City Police Station, Mansa under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 34 IPC (annexure P-1). They have alleged in this complaint that the petitioners 1 to 3, i.e. Raj Singh, Mal Singh and Punjab Singh filed a regular suit in the Court of Shri G.S. Dhillon and got the judgment and decree against the complainants by misrepresentation and substituting some other ladies in their place. According to the complainants, it is a clear case of forgery and impersonation since they were never served in this case. According to the complaint, the complainants never appeared in the court nor submitted any statement in the court, and the petitioners got some other ladies in place of the complainants and got a decree in respect of the lands of the complainants. Therefore, they had prayed that a case under sections 467, 468, 420, 419 and 34 IPC may be registered against them. The fourth petitioner is said to have identified the impersonators. The police have registered the case under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
2. The four petitioners have now come forward with this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said FIR (No. 58 dated 5.8.1996 of Police Station Mansa) on the ground that the police cannot investigate into these offences in view of the provisions contained in section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as per this Section, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of the sections enumerated therein except in a complaint in writing by the court where such offence is alleged to have been committed or in relation to any proceeding in that Court, or when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that since there is no complaint by the Court concerned, no court can take cognizance of such offences and the police cannot investigate into the offences complained of.
3. The first respondent State of Punjab has filed a reply opposing this application. Though the respondents 2 and 3 were represented by counsel and were given time for filing reply, they have not filed any reply.
4. But the contention of the counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 is that only FIR has been lodged and that the Court has not taken cognizance of the same and, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed. According to the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3/complainants, what is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is the taking of the cognizance by the Court of the offences emunerated therein and not the registration of the FIR and since no court has taken cognizance, this application to quash the FIR is not maintainable.
5. I have heard counsel for both the sides. A reading of the complaint (annexure P-1) shows that the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have obtained a decree against the respondents 2 and 3 by making some other ladies to impersonate the complainants. According to the State, the fourth petitioner allegedly identified the impersonate as the complainants. Learned counsel for the petitioners contenders that Section 195 Cr.P.C. is a bar not only to the court taking cognizance of the alleged offences, but even to the investigation by the police into the offences.
6. Before I examine this question, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. which read as follows :-
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. - (1) No court shall take cognizance -
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal con
